What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?

Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

False.

The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

Given that you have - consistently - shown that don't understand science (i.e. your posts elsewhere AND the decidedly-not-legitimate [as shown] claims in the OP of this thread) then you're not really qualified to comment.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?

People are sometimes too harsh with their rejections. I concur. If you answer a question with yes or no, people will not learn. It is impossible to know all.. however google makes it easier, but then again, it is easy to get lost in bias and mis/malinformation.

Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

1st law of thermodynamics.. lemme google...
- The internal energy of an isolated system is constant.

Well.. IF the earth would be a closed system, you would be correct. But the earth is in a system with the rest of the universe.

The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

Again, you would be correct, IF you assume that the radiance would increase because temperature difference is higher. Which is true.

But this effect is worked against by the greenhouse gasses. That keep in this radiance, so the new equilibrium (where the radiance of the earth is equal to the amount absorbed by the sun) is at a higher temperature. CO2 is less transparent for IR rays, which are the ones that reflect from the earth when sunlight hits it and the wavelength decreases.

Not to mention the runaway greenhouse effect, where more water can be held in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas, plus there would also be methane evaporation from the ocean depths and the arctic. Plus putrification from the mires etc, that put even more CO2 and methane in the air.

Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..

What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?

Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

Does that sum it up or have I missed something?

For one thing, you missed the fact that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to black bodies, which neither the Earth or its atmosphere are.
Another thing you missed is that the facts belie your argument. It is quite easy to work out what the Earth's effective black body temp should be based of the solar radiation it receives. It works out to be 279 K or (~6 C). However, the Earth reflects rather than absorbs a certain portion of that it gets, and this would drop the effective temp down to 255 K (-18C).
The actual measured average surface temp works out to be 288 k (15 C), 33 degrees warmer than the effective temp and 9 degrees warmer than even the black body temp.
The green house gases work like a "one-way" insulating blanket. They are transparent to visible light coming from the Sun. This visible light then strikes the surface and a portion is absorbed, heating the surface. The surface re-radiates in the infra-red, to which the greenhouses gasses are opaque. The gasses absorb and re-radiate that infra-red, some of it back to the ground. The effect is to raise the overall equilibrium temperature (the temperature the Earth needs to be in order to lose energy as fast as absorbs it from the Sun), and we get higher surface temps than we would otherwise.

"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone

Epsilon is the emission factor for this specific substance.
P is the energy that is irradiated.

You could make it so that you include the greenhouse effect factor. And stabilize P to the same level.

P*(greenhouse effect multiplyer)=* * A * T^4

If P is to be the same number, the greenhouse effect multiplyer should be 1.. which means it does not apply.. A doubling of the greenhouse effect means a GeM of 2.. If P needs to be the same, the formula has to be corrected. This is done by correcting the T on the other side of the formula.

Hope this makes it more understandable.

Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..